Norwegian Township v. Schuylkill County Board of Assessment Appeals
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 325
Pa. Commw. Ct.2013Background
- In 2007 Community Banks transferred a vacant parcel (Tax Parcel No. 20-06-0027) to Norwegian Township for $1.00; Schuylkill County later assessed real estate taxes on the parcel.
- The Township appealed to the Board of Assessment Appeals, which affirmed the assessment based on fair market value; the Township then appealed to the trial court claiming tax-exempt status.
- At the trial-court hearing the Township’s supervisor, Leo Grace, testified the Township has maintained and cleaned the site, applied repeatedly for grants since 2007 to build a playground, plans to install benches, and that the public has unfettered access to most of the parcel.
- The trial court found the property tax-exempt under the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Consolidated County Assessment Law, concluding the Township either currently uses the land for public purposes or made a good-faith effort to develop it for that use.
- The Board appealed, arguing the parcel is not actually and regularly used by the public, the Township’s plans are speculative and underfunded, and the Township has not made sufficient expenditures or improvements to trigger exemption.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding (1) the taxing authority bears the burden to prove taxability of government-owned property, and (2) the record supported the trial court’s findings that the parcel is available for public recreational use and that the Township made a good-faith development effort.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Township) | Defendant's Argument (Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bears burden to prove taxability for government-owned property? | Government-owned property is presumptively immune; taxing authority must prove taxability. | Guilford and similar cases place burden on taxpayer to prove exemption. | Burden lies on taxing authority for government-owned property; Granville and Lehigh-Northampton control. |
| Whether property is "actually and regularly used for public purposes" under Pa. Const. art. VIII, §2 | Township maintains, cleans, provides public access, announced public use, plans benches — constitutes public use or demonstrates good-faith development. | Parcel is vacant; no benches, signs, playground or current public use; plans speculative and unfunded. | Trial court’s finding that property is available for public recreational activities and used for public benefit is supported by record. |
| Whether good-faith development (construction standard) can support exemption despite lack of full development | Township spent funds on clearing/engineering, applied for grants repeatedly; this satisfies good-faith construction effort standard. | Expenditure was minimal/unsuccessful; Senior Citizen facts distinguishable and insufficient here. | Good-faith effort and some expenditure can overcome speculative-use concern; township’s evidence met that threshold. |
| Whether Board met its burden to show property is taxable | Township evidence suffices to rebut taxability presumption for government-owned property. | Board offered only assessment card and a photo showing vacancy; insufficient to rebut immunity. | Board failed to meet burden; exemption affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Granville Township v. Board of Assessment Appeals, 900 A.2d 1012 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (government-owned property presumed immune; taxing authority must prove taxability)
- Lehigh-Northampton Airport Authority v. Lehigh County Board of Assessment, 889 A.2d 1168 (Pa. 2005) (property owned by a Commonwealth governmental agency is presumptively immune and taxing body bears burden to show limitation of immunity)
- Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Board of Revision of Taxes, 833 A.2d 710 (Pa. 2003) (distinguishes immunity and exemption analyses; whether property is used for public purpose is a legal question)
- Senior Citizen Health Care Council v. Board of Tax Assessment Appeals of Erie County, 678 A.2d 430 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (a good-faith effort and expenditures toward developing property for intended public use can support exemption)